Category Archives: Uncategorized

The Censor Speaks

Yesterday, at the World Economic Forum’s Global Technology Governance Summit, I had the opportunity to speak to YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki. In her first interview following YouTube’s announcement of an accountability metric called Violative View Rate (VVR), Wojcicki spoke about countering misinformation, bettering regulation, and what’s next for YouTube. Below is a lightly edited transcript. You can see the full video here.

From Susan Wojcicki on the Road Ahead for YouTube
by Nicholas Thompson

If you are interested in the nitty-gritty details of Our Betters’ command-and-control plans for your mouth, your camera, and your keyboard, this article isn’t a bad place to start.

A Sad Sack of Media Lies

This is depressing, where touching and emotionally strong images prove to be Yet Another Media Lie.

From a recent article from Glenn Greenwald’s recent article:

—<Quote begins>—

Corporate News Outlets Again “Confirm” the Same False Story, While Many Refuse to Correct it

Journalists with major outlets know they spread a false, retracted story about the FBI and Giuliani but refuse to remove it, because their real job is spreading disinformation.

One of the primary plagues of corporate journalism, which I have documented more times than I can count, just reared its ugly head again to deceive millions of people with fake news. When one large news outlet publishes a false story based on whispers from anonymous security state agents with the CIA or FBI, other news outlets quickly purport that they have “independently confirmed” the false story, in order to bolster its credibility (oh, it must be true since other outlets have also confirmed it).

This is an obvious scam — they have not “independently confirmed” anything but rather merely acted as servants to the same lying security state agents who planted the original false story — but they do it over and over, creating the deceitful perception that a fake story has been “confirmed” by multiple outlets, thus bolstering its credibility in the public mind. It was the favored tactic for spreading debunked Russiagate frauds and is still used. One of the most vivid examples occurred in December, 2017, when CNN falsely reported what it hyped as “a major bombshell”: that Donald Trump, Jr. had advance access to the WikiLeaks archive. Within an hour, NBC News’ Ken Dilanian and CBS News both claimed they had “independently confirmed” this fairy tale. When it turned out that it was a complete lie, all based on a false date on an email to Trump Jr., these outlets embarrassingly corrected it hours later and then simply moved on as if it never happened, never explaining how multiple outlets could possibly have all “independently confirmed” the same blatant falsehood.

—<Quote ends>—

The lack of any scrap of integrity among the press corps is a drag.

It is also a old story… one that Orwell knew about firsthand.

From Homage to Catalonia: The Book Orwell Had to Write by John Rossi

—<Quote begins>—

On Boxing Day, Dec. 26, 1936 Orwell and wife Eileen left for Spain, supposedly paying for the trip by hocking the family silver. Originally Orwell sought to join the International Brigades but his links to the anti-Stalinist Independent Labor party and his criticisms of communism made securing an endorsement for the communist dominated Brigade impossible. His ILP contacts led him to join with a small radical, anarchist group with Trotskyist connections, POUM (Workers Party of Marxist Unification).


Orwell was in Barcelona and took part in the fighting when the Communists attacked the POUM on the grounds that it was secretly supporting Franco, something he knew was a lie.  The POUM was outlawed, its leaders rounded up and its spokesman Andres Nin, a man Orwell admired, was arrested, tortured and murdered by Russian agents.

After taking part in the fighting in Barcelona, Orwell returned to the front and was shot in the throat, the bullet missing his carotid artery by a millimeter, leaving him with a raspy voice for the rest of his life. While recovering from his wound, he was informed that he and his wife, who had worked as a secretary for POUM, were in danger of being arrested. Documents discovered in recent years indicated that they were to be shot. They fled Spain and returned to England in June 1937. 


Orwell was eager to tell his story of what he had seen and was shocked to discover that the war and especially its political dimension was being misrepresented throughout the British press. He offered an essay to Kingsley Martin, the editor of the leading leftwing journal, The New Statesman recounting what he saw during the suppression of the POUM in Barcelona, especially the role played by the communists, only to have it rejected on the grounds that it contradicted the Popular Front party line of ‘no enemies on the left.’  Orwell was outraged and began a campaign to get what he knew was truth out to the public. He never forgave Martin. Years later Orwell was having lunch with Malcolm Muggeridge and asked him to change seats. When Muggeridge inquired why, Orwell said that Martin was sitting across from him and he couldn’t abide looking at his corrupt face. Orwell did not forgive easily.

Orwell’s struggle to tell his story was the transforming event of his life, one that turned him into a bitter enemy of communism and especially its worshippers of Stalin. Unlike many of his fellow leftists, he never went through a Stalinoid phase as many British leftists did — a point noted by Christopher Hitchens. Orwell began writing his version of what he knew was happening in Spain, entitled Homage to Catalonia in a fit of anger. He argued that what he saw in Barcelona, the comradeship of the people — genuine equality — was destroyed by the Communists in order to gain control of the Revolution. He had to tell the truth of what happened even if it damaged the Republican cause, for otherwise no good would come of the Revolution. The way the war was presented in Britain disturbed him. “I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed … I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various party lines.” 

—<Quote ends>—

So many lies…driven by a quest to please power.

As if being Stalin’s parrot was any better than being Hitler’s parrot.

Sure, sometimes even the most independent man has to rely on repeating the words of an authority figure. Not everyone can no everything. But at least choose to parrot authority figures that aren’t oppressive mass-murderers!

And do not lie on behalf of Authority and Power. That kind of demonic lunacy is forbidden… at least among Christians.

(And – since there is only One Law – God forbids anyone from going that road.)

And — to bring the point home — a word on behalf of the police.

From Media Activists Do Not Care About Historic Nationwide Surge In Homicides
by Michael Tracey

—<Quote begins>—

The idea that cops’ views should not even be represented in journalistic accounts of the cities they patrol is self-evidently ridiculous, and “representing their views” doesn’t mean endorsing those views, or asserting that they should be accepted uncritically. In the post, I even went out of my way to caution that “their theories for complex multi-causal phenomena obviously should not be taken as gospel.” That doesn’t somehow render their perspectives journalistically irrelevant, though.

I don’t know whether the massive, unprecedented year-over-year nationwide surge in homicides in 2020 is attributable to political/cultural dynamics stemming from the outbreak of protests and riots last summer, as most cops seem to strongly believe. But it’s at least plausible as a contributing factor. (Of course COVID also had to play some role.) Either way, that this belief is widespread among police officers is a fact worth knowing.

[snipped a lot of data points, showing the strong spike of crime in 2020 and 2021.]

This is just a tiny sampling, but it should be obvious that something extremely sociologically significant is underway as much of the country reverts to early 1990s levels of peak homicides — with many cities greatly surpassing those peaks. It’s odd for national journalists to be so antagonistic about covering such an important trend (local journalists are usually better about it), and the only viable explanation for their hostility is that this reporting in some way undermines their ideological imperatives.

—<Quote ends>—

There is no way a Christian can make a good judgement, if he doesn’t get all the facts.

He must have the truth to make a righteous decision.

If that means listening to the police – or to the prisoner – or to the wealthy – or to the impoverished – or to the preacher – or to the pagan – than he must do it.

He is not going to get all the facts from the mainstream press, though.

Only the Official Narrative, on what His Betters decided he should know and think.

A pile of Official Lies, more often than you’d think.

I’m Scared

From The Morning, in the New York Times:

Few younger children — maybe none — will have been vaccinated by the fall. But data from both the U.S. and other countries suggests that children rarely infect each other at school. One reason is that Covid-19 tends to be mild for younger children, making them less likely to be symptomatic and contagious. Even more important, this coronavirus rarely harms children. For them, the death rate resembles that of a normal flu, and other symptoms, like “long Covid,” are extremely rare. Covid presents the sort of small health risk to children that society has long accepted without closing schools. A child who’s driven to school almost certainly faces a bigger risk from that car trip than from the virus.

Lawrence Vance continued on the LewRockwell blog:

Why don’t covid crazies listen to the New York Times, that great bastion of liberalism and statism? They must have utterly lost their minds due to lack of oxygen because of their double masks. And speaking of masks, even though the CDC has said that masks are not necessary outside under most circumstances, and even though my county specifically exempts masks during exercising, I have seen more people walking, rollerblading, and bike riding at the park with masks on than ever before.

There are people who want to be fearful, who want to hide from the world… and want to force everyone to join them, writhing in their screaming night terrors.

If I had a designer face mask, it would be black, with this in white: Why?

Gary North, Zooming Through College


Teenage Entrepreneurs

This is a great video on why we should train teenagers to be entrepreneurs. 
The problem is this: who will do the training? Public high school teachers 
are not entrepreneurs. 
A homeschool is the place to begin. 

Visit my site,, for the latest charts on the U.S. dollar, gold's price, and Federal Reserve statistics.

It would be exceedingly wise for Christian teens to be trained to stand on their own two feet financially.

The Left Has No Need of Evidence

Know who you are dealing with.

Equating accusations with proven fact is reckless and repressive. It is also standard behavior in liberal politics, whereby they ruin lives without a second thought.


The leading progressive Democratic candidate in New York City’s mayoral race, City Comptroller Scott Stringer, has had his chances for victory along with his reputation utterly destroyed over the last week. That happened due to allegations from a political consultant, Jean Kim, that Stringer groped her eighteen years ago, in 2003.

Despite no evidence presented that any of this happened, and despite this being the only assault accusation ever voiced about Stringer during his decades in public life, and despite Kim never having once claimed any of this even when she was working for a rival candidate who was ultimately defeated in 2013 by Stringer, and despite the sudden emergence of this accusation as Stringer’s mayoral campaign was surging, and despite evidence showing that Kim was highly misleading in several of her statements, and despite Stringer’s claims that Kim had been his girlfriend for several months accompanied by vehement denials of wrongdoing, numerous leftist groups and politicians who had endorsed him repudiated his candidacy within days of the emergence of this allegation, issuing statements which treat Kim’s claims as proven truth and depict Stringer as a vile sexual predator.

That is because, as has been seen repeatedly, the prevailing mentality in left-liberal politics is that even grave life-destroying accusations are to be treated as true without the need for any evidence. They casually and with apparent glee ruin people’s reputations and lives without batting an eye the second someone utters an allegation of sexual misconduct. And one is required to mindlessly accept such accusations as truth — never ask for evidence if it is true — if one wishes to remain in good standing in those circles and to avoid being smeared oneself as an apologist for sexual misconduct.

The Left Continues to Destroy Itself and Others With Evidence-Free Destruction of Reputations
Glenn Greenwald

The lawless left is, well, lawless.

Understand that when dealing with them.

But the far more important point is that any culture that is willing to destroy reputations and lives based on totally unproven accusations is one that is inherently corrupt and unjust. The ability to destroy someone’s life with nothing more than an uncorroborated claim voiced more than eighteen years after the alleged incident is a power with which nobody should be trusted.

The Left Continues to Destroy Itself and Others With Evidence-Free Destruction of Reputations
Glenn Greenwald

They do now care about evidence. They do not care about truth. They do not care about justice. They do not care about impartial law. They do not care about fairness.

They care about winning, getting what they want, right now.

Nothing else.

Know who you are dealing with.

Incidentally… take a look at the full url for the article:

To hate the law, to be utterly unjust and uncaring and wicked in the pursuit of arbitrary power, is to turn your back on God.

And to turn your back on God is to choose destruction and death for yourself.

Christians would be wise to insure that all the evidence is weighted, that there is no rush to judgement, that there is no bias in our judgements. No matter who is being judged, friend or foe, believer or unbeliever.

If God holds the godless to His standards, then He is sure to do the same to us, who claim to follow His Law-Word!

We must learn from the destruction of the left.

We must not go down the road they have chosen.

Or we will most certainly be destroyed, as they are being destroyed.

Organizing a Black Exodus from the Public Schools

This is definitely the best news I’ve had this decade… assuming North completes what he started.

He has a track record of getting the work done.

His article started:

Over a century ago, Sears & Roebuck’s Julius Rosenwald put up the money for over 5,000 schools in the South for black kids. Booker T. Washington put together the curriculum. The story is here.

This story received no publicity at the time. Southern whites did not want to admit that the existing tax-funded schools for blacks were substandard. That would have undermined “separate but equal” racism established by Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). White liberals in the North did not know about these schools. In any case, they were not in favor of schools that were not run by local governments. They still aren’t. They oppose charter schools.

Publicity is not my concern. Even racism isn’t my concern, not at this moment.

Results are what I’m here for.

A meaningful exodus of Black children out from the death-traps and into a world where they can get strong and smart and inspired to reach greater goals, is a most excellent thing.

More productive, literate & numerate, drug-free, and self-disciplined Black American children with a worthwhile goal for their future would be a blessing for Black Americans, for all Americans, for the Kingdom of God. Even good for the world as a whole, believer and unbeliever!

And yes, there will be secondary benefits to the economy (going up), the crime rate (going down), and even to Rosenwald’s heirs (greater social peace, with more customers with more money to spend.)

None of this is a problem for me. Lots of this would be a cause for celebration.

More curricula and more organizations to sustain a Black Exodus from the drug and crime-fueled “pre-prison” holding pens would be appreciated, though.

*Looks at all those wealthy Black Celebrities*

*Looks at all those Black churches*

Serious Legal Enforcement, vs. Exalting the Police Over All

I am not a fan of strict gun laws. To the contrary, I would drastically reduce the restrictions on firearms, up to and including allowing felons to carry heat after they have fully repaid their debt to the victim… assuming they have not committed a capital crime,1 and so are still in the world of the living after paying their debt.

All that being said, I LOVE the consistent enforcement on the law, regardless of person, wealth, or status.

Naturally, this means that I have to turn to a pagan nation’s rigorous enforcement of an unjust law for a decent model of impartial justice, instead of any Christian state enforcing a just law.

(This is so pathetic.
And if I – a not-too-bright sinner – think this is a most loathsome Christian failure at an incredibly basic level, can you imagine what God feels?)

But anyways….

—-<Quote begins>—

Quora: According to the National Rifle Association, a country without guns should be a crime-ridden hellhole, a place unsafe to live in and work in. So why is Japan not the crime- ridden hell hole?

Perry Lee · Former Liberal, now recovered.

“According to the National Rifle Association, a country without guns should be a crime-ridden hellhole, a place unsafe to live in and work in. So why is Japan not the crime- ridden hell hole?”

People will say it is because Japan has very strict gun laws (they do). But that is not the reason the Japanese do not use guns. Chicago and New Jersey have very strict gun laws as well, and their crime and homicide rates are very high. The true difference is that the Japanese enforce their gun laws without exception! The penalties for using a handgun or semiautomatic weapon are so harsh that the Yakuza, the Japanese version of organized crime, stays away from them. Using a gun in the commission of a crime will get you three years to life without exception. There is no plea bargaining. Even the police are under strict scrutiny. An officer that committed suicide while on duty was posthumously charged with a crime. An officer who is issued 24 rounds for range time had better turn in 24 casings when he is done or there will be Hell to pay. If you, as a hunter own a rifle and need ammunition, you too have to turn in the box of spent cartridges that you bought previously before you can purchase more.

The process of getting cleared to own a gun is so long and complex that it is cheaper -and easier- for the Japanese who want to go to the range to go to a range in Hawaii for a little fun-gun time, and Hawaiian gun ranges cater to them.

The takeaway for me in this story is the futility of comparing cultures and gun control. Japan has strict laws, low numbers of guns, and little gun crime. Switzerland has a very high number of guns per capita, and low gun crime. As soon as you bring different cultures into the gun dialogue, you are comparing apples and oranges.

—-<Quote ends>—

I am rather confident that the American police will never be held to the same legal standard as the mundanes.2 At least, not before they – and many, many other arms of the State – are radically defunded by the Great Default.

In contrast, the Japanese hold the police to the same standard as everyone else. The Japanese police are not some kind of above-the-law Master Class of that island nation. Instead, it’s “One Race, One People, One Law.”3

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.

The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.

I Corinthians 12:12-27, English Standard Version

I wish all Bible-believing Christians also believed that they were all of the same body, and were willing to cooperate and work with each other.

But they don’t: at least, not since the Reformation and the Thirty Year’s War. Faked-up Darwinian divisions, dividing humanity to superior and inferior breeds, didn’t help heal Christian divisions either.

Nor will the current “occupation army” model of policing actually reduce crime.

Conservatives want way too much law and police empowerment in the service of cultural norms that are none of the state’s damn business in the first place; and progressives confuse the often brutal and unjust over-reach of law enforcement agencies as a manifestation of racism, when it is actually just policing expectorations in behalf of inappropriate missions such as the enforcement of drug laws.

Indeed, the main trouble in America today is not overt racism or even simmering racial animosity. The real evil is the relentless aggrandizement of state power in the form of the Nanny State—a conflation of too many laws, crimes, cops, arrests and thereby opportunities for frictions between the state and its citizenry and for abuse by the gendarmes vested with legal use of violence.

David Stockman, Triumph Of The Woke Mob Led By Two Doddering Old Fools
as quoted by Gary North, in How to Reduce Crime, Reduce Taxes, and Increase Liberty

There is a good chance that this can change over the next two, three centuries, with the decline of the state (and Darwinism!) and the ongoing great decentralization of everything. It will be easier for Christians to look out for other Christians, and easier to reduce the significance3 of ethnicity and language and territory, in favour of truth, law, justice and compassion for the weaker brothers and sisters.

And the faster Conservative Christians FINALLY dump Nixon’s Drug War on Blacks and Antiwar groups, the better.4

But first, we Christians have to stop running away to hide in our ghettos, and drop our laughable fantasies of escaping reality via some Rapture or other, Real Soon Now. We have to take responsibility for expanding the Kingdom of God, in this world, at this time.

You know, like Jesus commanded us to.

1What? Did you say that the felon kidnapped, raped, and/or murdered the victim? Well, the proper place for the criminal is not in jail, but six feet under. After a just trial and prompt, lawful execution.

It’s God who sets the standard of justice, not (self-serving) powerful men. And a good thing too!

2Granted, the police are (marginally) not as legally untouchable as they used to be. There’s still a long way to go, though.

The first thing to note is that this sort of behavior is exactly what we should expect from a government monopoly with agents who have no skin in the game and have no market incentives to provide quality service at a reasonable price. When it’s politically convenient, police departments claim to serve and protect, but when it comes time to provide actual quality service, they’ll change their tune and insist that they are under no legal obligation to protect anyone. This is how police personnel get away with cowering behind their cars during school shootings. It’s why police spend an outsized amount of their time on harmless soft targets like suburban kids growing pot—but who are actually growing tomatoes. It’s why the police have time to go harass children with overdue library books. Departments are set up to reward officers who focus on petty crimes while more serious crimes are ignored. In many cities, only a tiny percentage of police resources go toward murder investigations. Indeed, police are remarkably inefficient at finding and arresting violent criminals. 

Ideally, real reform would reduce the monopoly powers and legal protections afforded to police departments. This means removing qualified immunity for police officers and abolishing police unions

True reform means ending the war on drugs. It means reducing police encounters with private citizens over small-time, petty infractions. It means redefining many “crimes” as matters to be dealt with in the civil courts. True reform means focusing police resources on serious violent crime and real theft (i.e., not a $13 nontheft at Walmart). 

In the case of Karen Garner, there was absolutely no need to make an arrest. In a more reasonable world, at most Garner would have received a citation for her alleged attempt at petty theft. She could have been hauled up before a judge by Walmart, although it’s unclear what Walmart would sue her for since she didn’t actually steal anything. 

The Problem with “Just Do What the Cops Say and You Won’t Get Hurt”
Ryan McMaken

3But also see Why Every Japanese Criminal is Guilty and Why Japan’s conviction rate is 99%.

3Reduce the significance… but not render null and void. There are no families in eternity, but there ARE nations and tribes!

Also: if a given plot of land belongs to tribe X – say, the way the island of Honshu belongs to the Japanese – it still belongs to them. Sure, you can buy your own plot there…IF they allow you to. But if they say no, then you don’t get to buy what they don’t put up for sale.

Even if they are a bunch of pagans, their stuff is still their stuff. Not yours.

“There is only one law.”

No matter what the Marxists, or the Fascists, or the Racists, or anyone else says.

4If I were a betting man, I would put real money that this will happen only after the solid majority of “Conservative American Christians” are of a radically darker hue than they are today. That day is coming… but I’d rather not wait that long. The right thing should be done today, by the Christians who are alive today, be they white, black, or brown.

And if that means that White Conservative Christians reap the electoral (and legal, and financial, and safety) rewards of finally dumping Nixon and his racist and illegal war, then so be it.

No more massive drug profits
(and the newfound ability to go to the courts to resolve financial disputes!)
=> no more huge piles of money to kill over
=> far less crime and danger for the public
=> no more police idolatry.

At least Bojidar Marinov who discovered this bit of blasphemy has no interest in kneeling
to our new Lord and Saviour, the sword of a godless & lawless state.
(You’d think that the outright worship of power would be despised among Christians. Apparently not.)

Federal Reserve Policy and Childbirth

The following quotes are taken from the Economica blog.

I only have some selected text below, but half (or more!) of the value of the articles are in the graphs provided. Only one chart is included in this post.

Please consider visiting the original source of the quotes!

—<Quote below is from
Federal Reserve Induced Inflation Has Resulted in Collapsed US Births…Twice>—

Total US births are collapsing and likely to continue falling significantly further over the coming decade(s). However, this isn’t our first rodeo…as total births collapsed during the 1960’s ’til early ’80’s…almost inexplicably against a fast growing childbearing population. And now, since 2007 (and not just a C-virus one off), total births have again collapsed against a growing childbearing population. I will make the case that much of this comes back to the Federal Reserve’s policies to foment stagflation/inflation which have created the birth dearth(s). Young adults (potential parents), like the canary in the coalmine, are among the most economically vulnerable to the Fed fueled asset inflation (with lagging pay increases and little to no assets riding the bubble, at least partially offsetting the rising costs of living). Their determination to delay marriage and children is the ultimate barometer of the US economic wellbeing.


In order to achieve financial strength / independence, the number of women getting secondary educations has soared. As of 2019, a greater percentage of females (36.6%) have four-year or greater college degrees than males (35.4%)…compare that to the pre-war situation of 1940, with 3.8% & 5.5%, respectively. Obviously, the 4+ years of education plus the associated soaring student loan debt has pushed marriage, homeownership, and children to the latest on record.

The average age that a female first marries has soared from 20 in the 1950’s to somewhere beyond 28 years old in 2021. Consider…
-The average age of a mother at first childbirth is now over 26 years old
-The average age of a married mother at first childbirth is now over 29 years old…versus unmarried mothers closer to 24.
-Women with a college education (heavily impacting financial capability of supporting a family) are now approaching 31 years of age before first childbirth versus 24 w/out a college degree.

It’s also important to note that the decline in births is not due to abortion. Total abortions and abortions to live-birth ratio continue to decline from the 1980’s, early 90’s peak. Total abortions are down 50% since peak, and abortion to live-birth ratio is at record low levels since Roe v. Wade in 1973. Still, as of 2018, abortion to live-birth ratio was 189 abortions per 1000 live births…still significant (& massively contentious), but my point is it is a decelerating impact on total births.


From 2009 through 2020, there were 6.6 million fewer births (-12.5%) in the US (regardless legal/illegal status of the parents) than the Census projected there would be, in both it’s 2000 and 2008 projections. Given the flat childbearing female population, soaring average age at first marriage, and collapsing fertility rates, I’m projecting nearly 15 million fewer births (-30%) over the next decade than the ’00/’08 Census projections.

So What? Ultimately, the most inflationary thing in an economy is population growth and family formation. But the Fed’s policies, although advocating inflation via substituting currency dilution, interest rate mismanagement, quantitative easing, etc., is actually the basis of long term deflation. The merits of a financial system requiring infinite growth against an economic system meant to supply the finite needs of a population (with little to no population growth) should have been debated long ago. Now the economic system is being poked and prodded with stimulus, ZIRP, QE, untold leverage, etc. to synthetically produce growth for a financial system that can be called nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. The faster the substitution of these synthetic proxies (and their asset inflation impacts), the faster the decline in births will be. All of the trends in place to push births lower are accelerating. Whether this is intentional or de facto, I can’t say…but the outcome of collapsing US (and worldwide) births is clear.

—<Quote ends>—

The synthetic production of growth – most definitely including the puffing of the stock & housing markets – is great for the 1%, but only harms the average family, and the nation as a whole.

Nobody cares, so long as the welfare treats continues to flow, and calm the dogs right down: white and black, old and young.

Watch out when the treats are gone, and only sticks are left.

—<Quote below is from Global Depopulation – Two paths, One Destination>—

It would appear that the seven decades of global reserve currency management coinciding with the unprecedented downturn in fertility, births, and population growth are highly correlated. The power to artificially determine interest rates, rather than trust in a free market, has reverberations throughout business, finance, and economics. But interest rate policy also seems to have guided birth rates and ultimately the population of this planet. Like most things, I doubt the Federal Reserve would even dignify this with a comment or discussion…but the data suggesting the Federal Reserve (BoJ, ECB, BoE, etc.) has, is, and will likely continue to be guiding depopulation (in like goal to China…but differing in method), while simultaneously choosing winners/losers for decades to come, seems fairly compelling.

—<Quote ends>—

I expect the Economic & State Policy for Enduring Stability (a.k.a. killing the future, stopping undesirable — preferably, any — change) will continue, until there aren’t enough loyal young men to staff the police and military and maintain control over the expanding Silence Zones.

In a depopulating world, I’d peg this point at around a generation after the Great Default, and the end of the Welfare State. If you peg the Default at 2030, the end of even a defendable pretense of centralized control would be at about 2070.

—<Quote from Just Charts of Demographics…with Multiple Variables
(or hot topics for your next cocktail party)>—

Finally, here’s how this plays out regarding the most fundamental of human needs…shelter or housing…plus I’ll stretch out to the 15-64yr/old population and employed among them versus annual housing starts and the Federal Funds Rate (%). The Federal Reserve purchasing of MBS / QE has artificially pushed mortgage rates to record lows to induce an artificial housing frenzy amid a secular turn to outright declining potential buyers and soaring quantity of potential sellers (elderly who already own homes). If I didn’t know better, I’d think the Fed hates young adults and is setting them up to be the bag holder of an awful oversupply of very expensive housing when the bottom invariably falls out…again.

Some say these are the seeds of the second American revolution as a class of unelected, undemocratic central bankers enrich a tiny majority at the expense of the majority…but I just like making colorful charts.

—<Quote ends>—

It’s deeply unlikely that there will be any second American revolution: at least, any violent, dramatic one that will be great for the cameras.

Instead, in a rapidly depopulating world where the welfare state (and the warfare state!) has been dead and gone for ages – along with most or all of the value of the US Dollar – people will merely walk away.

The commands of the remote and irrelevant Imperial Capital will simply be ignored.

Local Nullification: A Way to Fight Both State and Federal Despots

A full cut’n’paste from the Mises article of the same name.

—<Quote begins>—

04/29/2021 ŸŸŸŸ* James Ketler

Throughout American history, decentralists have championed “states’ rights” as the winning strategy for freedom, but what if that’s not enough? After all, states, in many cases, have themselves become instruments of grave tyranny. What are citizens to do when their own state governments impose onerous restrictions, regulations, and mandates upon them? In recent years, the answer has become clear: local governments can interpose themselves between the citizens and the state government by refusing to uphold unjust laws. Just as states can nullify federal laws, localities can nullify state laws. This offers a way for even very small pockets of the population to defend their natural rights when they’ve been imperiled—a valuable strategy for the modern age.

Local Governments Can Resist State Tyranny

Traditionally, the theory of nullification has only been applied to the relationship between the states and the federal government. In “Federalist No. 46,” James Madison pointed out that states’ “refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union … would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.” If a state used this strategy to nullify a law, the federal government would be left with no recourse, since it cannot seize control of states’ resources or coerce them into enforcing federal laws.

This principle—dubbed the “anti-commandeering doctrine”—has been repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court. Instead of relying on state authorities, the federal government, in such a case, would have to use its own resources to enforce the law in that state, which—due to budgets and limited manpower—is a costly and rather unlikely enterprise. That’s given this strategy a successful record over the course of the American republic, originally being used to resist the Fugitive Slave Act and federal immigration and drug laws in modern times.

But how can local governments nullify state laws? The story here is a bit different. Because different states have developed under different historical circumstances, there is no single rule governing the state-local relationship. Some states are “Dillon’s rule” jurisdictions, which means that they regard local governments as mere administrative subdivisions of the state that only have power insofar as the state delegates it to them. Other states are “home rule” jurisdictions, which recognize at least some degree of self-government as a fundamental right of localities. Some states are a hybrid between the two, using Dillon’s rule for some local polities and extending home rule to others. In any case, all the intricacies of the state-local relationship are spelled out either in state law or in the state constitution.

At first glance, then, this appears to mean that the state holds absolute supremacy over localities. After all, it’s the state government that gets to define the relationship it has with localities, and even the local autonomy granted in home rule jurisdictions exists only at the mercy of the state. “From a legal standpoint, no anti-commandeering doctrine exists for cities or counties,” the Tenth Amendment Center’s Mike Maharrey has lamentingly declared. For proponents of political decentralization, this realization is disheartening. It leads to the conclusion that state authorities could, at any time, dissolve the structure of the local government and turn all local officials into agents loyal to state authorities. Maharrey continued, “From a strategic standpoint, activists should be wary of trying to employ a strategy created for states to use against the feds as a tool for local governments to take on a state.” Many have thus written off local nullification as an impracticable pipe dream, even folks who would love to see the strategy succeed.

Luckily, that isn’t the whole story. In his criticism of local nullification, Maharrey may be thinking too much about the theoretical legal structure of the state-local relationship and less about how that relationship actually functions in practice. As a report from the National League of Cities points out,

It is often—too often—said that cities and counties are creatures of state law, even in states with the strongest existing versions of constitutional home rule. That proposition is technically true, but state governments are also creatures of state law and the truism does not reveal anything definitive about how any given state allocates formal legal authority between the state and the local level. That is a question that state, and federal, constitutional law leaves entirely to the people of each state to determine.

Through the ballot box, it’s ultimately the people of each state who exercise control over the sort of laws that are passed and who must assent to any changes to the state constitution (in every state besides Delaware). If the structure of local government is spelled out in a state’s constitution, the voters would have to ratify any would-be changes to that structure via a statewide plebiscite. If the structure of local government is prescribed in statutory law, the state legislature would have the power to alter it by itself, but only technically. Of course, ever hungry for better poll numbers, state senators and congressmen would be unwilling to alter the structure of local government if doing so violated the wishes of their constituents and invoked their fury.

In fact, only one state—tiny Connecticut—has ever managed to abolish its counties, and that’s only because public opinion there came to view them as unnecessary. The legislatures of any medium- or large-sized state would surely never be able to get away with any such change to the local structure. It’s not, then, that it’s not a legal possibility for states to commandeer local resources; rather it’s just that, as a political reality, they’re not able to.

If state governments can’t interfere in local affairs, then, that means that they have little recourse against local nullification. Local sheriffs, who are almost always elected (rather than appointed) to their positions, are well suited to lead these efforts, as they’re beholden only to their voters and not to any state or local board. Sheriffs can simply refuse to enforce laws that, in their view, violate the principles of justice and the Constitution, and can direct their deputies to do the same. The sheriff’s office is under no obligation to back unjust measures with its own local resources and so can openly refuse to do so. To defenders of liberty, this strategy is quite promising.

“However,” one might counter, “couldn’t the state government sue for the removal of a recalcitrant sheriff on the ground that he failed to perform his duty?” Well, they could certainly try, and it’s true that sheriffs can be removed through the courts; however, law enforcement is afforded a great deal of discretionary wiggle room in their jobs, and—probably for this reason—no suit has been brought against a nullifying sheriff to date. In practice, state officials have really had hardly any recourse at all against these sheriffs. As a practical strategy, local nullification has been shown time and time again to be rather rock solid. Not only has it served counties very well in the past few years, but the idea behind it actually stretches back to before the Civil War.

The Role of Local Nullification Today

The idea of local nullification was first explicitly propounded by Senator Stephen A. Douglas in 1858 during a debate against his senatorial election rival Abraham Lincoln in Freeport, Illinois. In what became known as the Freeport Doctrine, Douglas proposed that towns and counties in US territories could decide for themselves whether to be “slave” or “free.” That decision did not have to be made by any higher level of government—localities could do it themselves. Despite the Supreme Court’s then recent Dred Scott decision, local governments would not be bound to protect planters’ slave “property.” “[S]lavery,” Douglas told Lincoln, “cannot exist a day or an hour anywhere, unless it is supported by local police regulations.” Without a higher authority capable of commandeering local resources, slavery could be de facto abolished even if it remained officially legal.

Though there are a few key differences between Douglas’s Freeport Doctrine and the local nullification efforts of today, the gist has always been the same: following the will of local voters, law enforcement officials can and should refuse to enforce laws considered to be unjust or unconstitutional. This idea is far from new and can be adapted for use in various times and places. The late, great Murray Rothbard, who identified the creeping of tyranny at every level of government, was enamored of Douglas’s “quiet, local nullification.” He considered it the “one course left to the lovers of freedom” in the antebellum US—practical, simple, and nonburdensome. Perhaps today, more than 160 years later, the principles articulated in Freeport still offer a path forward for those “lovers of freedom.”

Already, there is the Constitutionalist Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA), whose four hundred–plus members refuse to enforce, among other things, covid mandates and state gun control measures. The founder of the CSPOA, former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, Richard Mack, considers local sheriffs one of the final lines of defense against government tyranny. “[W]hen you have no place else to go, when all the courts are against you, all the legislators are against you, where else do you go?” he asked a Washington Post interviewer. “I believe,” he continued, “to the local county sheriff … and if that means standing against the federal government, then so damn be it.”

Mack’s group of local nullifiers made national headlines this past year, after vowing not to enforce mask mandates and lockdown orders in their counties, citing that those policies are oppressive and unconstitutional. Due to the nature of their offices, they thankfully haven’t faced any serious repercussions. Their most heated critics could only throw a few roadblocks in their way, none of which made much difference to their efforts.

Sheriff Adam Fortney of Snohomish County, Washington, faced two recall petitions after refusing to enforce Governor Jay Inslee’s lockdown order last April. But those petitions came from busybody voters in his county—not state authorities—and they both failed anyway. In December, Los Angeles County sheriff Alex Villanueva announced his deputies would take a lax attitude toward the new stay-at-home order Governor Gavin Newsom had imposed on counties in Southern California. In response, the furious Newsom threatened to suspend the county (and any others who considered following its lead) from receiving covid relief funds—all carrot, no stick. Outside of that, the state government was without any options. Many more sheriffs across the country did exactly what Fortney and Villanueva did, successfully shielding local citizens from oppressive state orders.

The same has been done to resist state gun control measures. In 2018, Governor Inslee signed into law a set of new firearm regulations which made background checks more stringent and raised the minimum age for purchasing semiautomatic rifles. Though Washington is a decidedly blue state, about a dozen sheriffs in rural counties took action to resist the new measures in part or in full. Inslee, again, couldn’t compel those sheriffs’ compliance. The most he could do was instruct the state patrol to enforce the new restrictions in those counties themselves (but without the support of local departments, this is both difficult and costly). The resources of Washington’s local counties simply couldn’t be commandeered—nor could they in Nevada or New Mexico, where similar resistance efforts took place around the same time. Nullification won the day.


Local nullification offers a practical guide to resisting tyranny in a way that reflects the real wishes of local community members against the ivory-tower mentality of their government “representatives.” The state must be fought tooth and nail, and—as the most heinous and expropriative criminal of all—it makes sense for sheriffs to have a role in this fight. Civil disobedience is all well and good, but it can often be too time consuming or injurious to those taking part in it, which limits its strategic worth. But sheriffs—who have tangible power and a fair amount of autonomy—can just ignore the laws that warrant disobedience and thus vitalize the efforts of the state’s enemies.

Short of outright revolution, such local nullification may be the last true refuge for liberty. For now, change at the state and federal levels may be a lost cause, but working bit by bit and county by county, the forces of freedom still have a fighting chance.

Author: James Ketler

James Ketler is a high school student living in Massachusetts with his brother, sister, and parents. He became interested in libertarianism in 2015 after hearing about Rand Paul’s presidential campaign and followed the rabbit hole straight down to Mises and Rothbard. When he’s able to find the time, James loves to study and write about liberty, ethics, history, and economics.

—<Quote ends>—

Good people can come out of Massachusetts, after all!
Young good people, if you aren’t astonished enough!

Future victory beckons,
if you aren’t interested in kneeling to the Universal Order of Your Contemptuous Betters.

I strongly endorse the rise of local rule, with state rule being merely a steeping stone for every county, town and hamlet to run their own affairs, their own way.

This comprehensive decentralization, alone, will not defeat godless evil per se. It merely restricts the scope of tyranny, mass-murder, and oppression, while lowering the

  • costs of freedom,
  • the price to escape from unjust laws, rulers, and bureaucrats;
  • self-governance of the individual,
  • and the price of an authentic community of your neighbors who you know, and have history with.

Minor tyrants are more easily ousted at a lower cost, while the good a nation or community does is imitated by growth- and future-oriented societies.

That is, Christian societies.

Backgrounder/Required Reading:
Restoring America, One County at a Time by Joel McDurmon

A Leader Who Did The Donkey Work

From Tom Woods. Creep Governor who Just Got Creepier

At this point everyone knows about the creepiness of Andrew Cuomo, but today the New York Times reported that his cover-up regarding deaths in nursing homes went on longer and was more extensive than previously thought.

Everyone is throwing Cuomo under the bus, though he’s still hanging in there.

By coincidence, just when the Establishment decided it could dispense with Cuomo it also happened to discover cases of the governor abusing women — as if no one had considered before that a sleaze like Cuomo might have a woman problem.

But until recently, the only governor who’s been subjected to nonstop abuse in the media has been, of course, Ron DeSantis of Florida.

Jay Bhattacharya, professor of medicine at Stanford University and one of the signers of the Great Barrington Declaration, said of DeSantis in his second appearance on the Tom Woods Show:

“Most epidemiologists don’t know the literature as well as he does. I don’t have the words. I’m still stunned by it. I didn’t know anything about him before September, really. I’ve just been very impressed.

“He had read all the papers I had referenced, and not just my articles — lots and lots of other papers. He knew all of the details; it was a remarkable conversation. And then, we had this like roundtable on Sept. 25, with Martin [Kulldorff, of Harvard] and Mike Leavitt [of Stanford], and with DeSantis leading it, and the next day he lifted most of the restrictions all across Florida.

“I had a reporter ask me about him, from Politico, and the line the reporter was trying to give me was that [DeSantis] got lucky, that he turned out to be right, but he got lucky. Obviously, there’s great uncertainty about risks about any policy of this kind of scope, but it’s not actually luck. He was very, very well-informed.

“By adopting a policy that’s robust to scientific uncertainty, he’s inoculated himself against, in a sense, being wrong, because he’s adopted a policy that will be right over a very broad range of scientific parameters. Whereas the lockdown folks, they’re only right for a narrow set of scientific parameters. And those scientific parameters turned out to be not right. So, I think in a sense, he’s not lucky; he actually is smart. And he really got the policy right by delving deep into the science.” 

That’s what we’d be reading in the media if we lived in a normal country.

A leader who did his own donkey work — and plenty of it! — when the topic was of critical importance to the life and labour of his people.

Some things, even many things, a leader should delegate. But when it comes to the key critical matters, you have to spend the time to master the material yourself.

There is no substitute for this.

THIS is the kind of man Christians should emulate: ordinary believers, certainly, but especially leaders.

“Go thou and do likewise.”